this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
103 points (99.0% liked)

politics

29428 readers
1880 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the subject of intensifying speculation about a potential retirement before the midterm elections, is not expected to leave the bench this year, sources close to the justice have told ABC News.

Alito, 76, has been hiring clerks for next term and intends to continue serving into at least 2027, the sources who have spoken to Alito told ABC.

The court's most senior member -- 77-year-old conservative Justice Clarence Thomas -- is also expected to remain on the bench.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well that's good in a way, if they retire now Trump would be able to pick their replacements.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They’ve been playing the long game for a long time. They’ll retire when it's convenient for them.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One can always hope that hubris causes their downfall and they die early in a Dem presidents term, akin to how RBG kicked off during Trump term 1 when she could have retired somewhere during Obama's time.

[–] Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip 5 points 23 hours ago

Man, she pisses me off so much. Everything she fought for goes up in smoke because she can't imagine letting go of power.

This is why I always urge people to treat "feminists" with the same skepticism you would give to an antifeminist. So often the people taking the lead in a movement are just power-hungry assholes.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 8 points 1 day ago

And the fake opposition party will confirm new appointees.

[–] homes@piefed.world 20 points 1 day ago

Why would they risk their multimillion dollar per year bribes?

[–] Uranus_Hz@lemmy.zip 5 points 22 hours ago

They are waiting to see the result of the midterms before deciding.

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

🙏🙏 Please pull a RBG 🙏🙏

[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't that just dying in office and getting replaced by a super conservative?

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago

Dying in office and getting replaced by your ideological opposite ✌️

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 2 points 19 hours ago

What a bittersweet event.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 3 points 22 hours ago

My dad didn't want to retire either. He did not retire, but he is not working anymore, or in pain.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In other 'news' grass is green and the pope remains Catholic

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

No, it's not really that obvious, at least for Alito. The article doesn't mention the fact that he has a book coming out soon, and I read in a different article that his scheduled book tour conflicts with the next Court term.

Plus, there is a small chance that Democrats win back the Senate, and if that happens before the next SCOTUS opening then there is zero chance Democrats act on it, after what happened with Garland's nomination to replace Scalia. So, if either justice was thinking of retiring, they would prefer to do it while Republicans still held the Senate.

I doubt Thomas ever leaves before his health forces to, though. He makes too much in ~~bribes~~ gratuities to make any other gig attractive.

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Plus, there is a small chance that Democrats win back the Senate, and if that happens before the next SCOTUS opening then there is zero chance Democrats act on it

I wish I could muster that level of optimism for Chuck Schumer.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I get it, but I think this time even Chuck will be on board. He can even call it the "McConnell Rule" if he wants. Politicians always love blaming the other side.

The only way a Democratic Senate would approve a new Trump justice would be if Democrats went to him and said "I know you won't nominate a Liberal, here is a list of Conservatives we would back" and Trump picked one of them. Yes, even Fetterman would support that.

And before you start hating on Chuck over supporting any Conservative judge, remember that there are a pile of Conservative judges who are pissed off over this Administration also. Forcing Trump to appoint a centrist may make the difference between Trump being able to successfully ratfuck the next Presidential election, or not.

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a roller coaster of a comment.

First you say that Chuck would probably be on board for the "McConnell rule", and then freely admit that he would also be on board for confirming a conservative judge that he "approved of".

Well, I don't think you're wrong about the second part. I also think Chuck would confirm a conservative justice, and for him the only requirement would be unconditional support for Israel, with some lip service to civil liberties, that's it.

Because all Chuck cares about is Israel and expanding corporate power, in that order.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, my point is that not all Conservative judges are the same. And, if you take the Constitution seriously, the President has a right to pick someone, and the Senate has a right to advise him on who they find acceptable, and their consent is a requirement. So this the way it was supposed to have worked all along.

Remember that Anthony Kennedy is a conservative, and he was nominated to the Court by Reagan. Yet, once the Court started to lurch to the Right he ended up being the swing vote. Regardless, though, he retired while Republicans could fully control his replacement.

You could argue Kennedy was a compromise choice, because the Senate was in control of Democrats at the time, and they had already rejected Robert Bork for the job. If Chuck could force a similar outcome, wouldn't that be a good thing?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 1 day ago

Or any of the rotating villain "opposition."

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fair enough, still the norm seems to be to cling to the seat till deaths cold hands pry you from it.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Well, yeah, it is a lifetime appointment. It, quite literally, takes an Act of Congress to be fired from it. So they can hold to the job as long as they want.

[–] randamumaki@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe all of those conservative judges need to be "convinced" to retire once someone other than the orange fool is in charge of finding their successors.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 21 hours ago

Impeached, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago

Fuckin Sith Lords